Attorney Protective’s Post

Free CLE: Wed, Jun 12, 2024 12:00 PM CDT Conflicts of interest remain at the top of the list of malpractice claims. Conflicts take many forms and can even develop during the course of representation. Despite our vigilance, conflicts can be difficult to identify and complicated to handle once they arise. Please join J. Calhoun Watson, attorney at Robinson Gray located in Columbia, South Carolina, and Kate Gould, Risk Management Attorney at Attorney Protective, as they analyze several potential conflict of interest scenarios. Throughout the webinar, you will receive best practice tips as to how to avoid conflicts and properly address them. Our speakers will discuss the relevant Rules of Professional Conduct that can help you determine whether a conflict exists, as well as what actions to take when you are confronted with a conflict.

Jordan Rothman offers great insights. I would add: 1) discuss juror perceptions of the client/company, especially where deep pockets or polarizing public sentiment may be involved; 2) be strategic about fee-shifting eligible claims, and clear with the client/company about how they are factoring into the valuation at various stages; and 3) GCs/execs: for deep pockets, frequently sued, and potentially polarizing companies, commit to "hardening the target" through thorough risk assessment and treatment practices.

This year, at our 12th Annual Client Training and Appreciation, we shared Case Studies about the real-life consequences of Property Managers' actions. Our event offered a unique perspective, presenting real-life scenarios we often see in court. This information is not only theoretical but also practical, providing you with insights to enhance your policies and procedures and avoid legal complications. We covered several topics, including protective orders, HCV side deals, and navigating contested cases. Senex not only provides expert counsel to our clients, but we also work with them to understand how they can improve their property management skills to avoid risk. We value our client relationships and want them to be successful! Clients can access our videos and materials from the sessions now! Please let Donje Putnam, ARM, RAM if you need access. #senexlaw

Frankly, I don’t get it 🤷♂️ I like it, love that we apparently stand out but am probably too insecure to actually think we are good enough to be in the company we keep. We act like ourselves, tell our story and we get shortlisted for awards.... go figure….being yourself can work 😊 Three short listings at the Modern Law Awards and one with LexisNexis UK Legal Awards 🙂 Boutique law firm and client service (both super important to us especially when about 90% of work are disputes which can be hard to manage client expectations with) but my favourite is our Knowledge Management award short listing by Lexis Nexis for their annual awards which stems from our fraud hub (link in the comments) and work with the University of Birmingham. Why my favourite? Because it sits with a purpose I have had from the start with Tenet - to share knowledge on preventing and combatting fraud to help clients and wider society. We have a brand that is slowly building - we want to be here to stay and keep doing the work that interests us. Our brand of putting our people first, recognised great client service and focus on disputes and compliance arising from fraud and financial crime is building bit by bit. These awards nods help us and we are very humbled to be amongst these other firms shortlisted. 🙏

Shadow juries are a relatively new tool in a high value trial. A "shadow juror" listens to the trial as it proceeds and provides their opinion as to what is resonating with the jury and what isn't. The primary focus of the shadow juror is to evaluate the impact of expert testimony as opposed to the overall performance of defense counsel. The average cost for a shadow juror is roughly $10,000 per day. The standard industry to response to a request for shadow juror expense is to "send the adjuster" to the trial. I can attest to this as I have attended many trials with the instructions to "put a stop to things if things start going south". The problem with this approach is the adjuster did the investigation, has been a part of defense formulation from the beginning, and has about as many biases as anyone involved in claim defense. The larger the biases, the bigger the blind spots. While an adjuster may be an economic way to try to avert impending disaster, it may not be your best choice for "the last line of defense". Whether you decide to do a mock trial, a shadow juror, or both, it is imperative to inject as much data into the process as possible. Fraud Sniffr, Inc. is an economical, convenient, and effective means to produce the necessary data necessary to maximize the value of your more expensive evaluation tools. Start your search today at https://hubs.li/Q02fgmz70 #InsuranceDefense #Jury #ClaimDefense #SocialMediaInvestigation

💪Case Works continues to fight fraud in the mass tort industry daily! Last fall, Mike Papantonio invited us to discuss some of the critical issues plaguing the mass tort legal industry. With a focus on the rise of fraudulent practices in mass tort lead generation, we aim provide valuable insights into the challenges faced by law firms today and how to avoid the pitfalls so that you can ultimately protect your greatest asset… Your Firm, Your Team, Your Investment, and most importantly, Your Clients. 👉🏻Watch the full interview here: https://lnkd.in/g_MJdk7f

As you know, the Sitzer-Burnett verdict and subsequent copycat cases nationwide have led to a reassessment of real estate practices and the relationship between consumers and agents. Today, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) has announced a proposed settlement to resolve litigation regarding broker commissions, pending court approval. This agreement aims to ease the burden on our members and provide a clear direction for the industry. It would release NAR, along with over a million NAR members, state and local associations, MLSs owned by associations, and brokerages with NAR members, from any liability related to claims on broker commissions made by home sellers. Various members' perspectives were considered during negotiations to safeguard the interests of all involved. The settlement achieves two main goals: securing the release of liability for many industry entities and maintaining consumer options in real estate services and payment. Key points of the settlement include a significant payment of $418 million over four years. Additionally, a new rule will prevent compensation offers from being listed on the MLS but will allow for negotiation outside of it. MLS participants working with buyers must have written representation agreements. NAR maintains its position of no wrongdoing, highlighting the advantages of cooperative compensation and existing policies in facilitating property ownership, particularly for lower- and middle-income buyers. WATCH: Litigation Update from NAR President Kevin Sears and CLO Katie Johnson https://lnkd.in/gVg-T5TK What’s next •The practice changes will go into effect in mid-July 2024. •The settlement is subject to court approval, which is a process that we can expect to take several months or more and will include an opportunity for interested parties to object. In large class action settlements like this one, objections are common. •We will move to have litigation about the MLS cooperative compensation Model Rule stayed, or paused, as to NAR pending the settlement approval process. •NAR will also continue to provide updates about the settlement process as it unfolds on competition.realtor. Additionally, there are materials available about today’s announcement at facts.realtor. You will need your NAR login credentials to access these materials. NAR will also continue to update competition.realtor with the latest information.

Johnson & Johnson Settlement Puts Litigation Funders in the Spotlight An opinion piece by Sujeet Indap in the Financial Times looks at the recent announcement of a settlement in the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder mass tort case, and the ways in which it has put the contentious role of litigation funders in the spotlight once more. Indap highlights that J&J used its press release announcing the settlement to take aim at “the unregulated and surreptitious financing of product litigation”, which it argued had created financial incentives for these large-scale mass tort cases. https://lnkd.in/e5ebvgXV #litigationfinance #litigationfunding #litfin #legalfinance #legalfunding #masstorts

Shadow juries are a relatively new tool in a high value trial. A "shadow juror" listens to the trial as it proceeds and provides their opinion as to what is resonating with the jury and what isn't. The primary focus of the shadow juror is to evaluate the impact of expert testimony as opposed to the overall performance of defense counsel. The average cost for a shadow juror is roughly $10,000 per day. The standard industry to response to a request for shadow juror expense is to "send the adjuster" to the trial. I can attest to this as I have attended many trials with the instructions to "put a stop to things if things start going south". The problem with this approach is the adjuster did the investigation, has been a part of defense formulation from the beginning, and has about as many biases as anyone involved in claim defense. The larger the biases, the bigger the blind spots. While an adjuster may be an economic way to try to avert impending disaster, it may not be your best choice for "the last line of defense". Whether you decide to do a mock trial, a shadow juror, or both, it is imperative to inject as much data into the process as possible. Fraud Sniffr, Inc. is an economical, convenient, and effective means to produce the necessary data necessary to maximize the value of your more expensive evaluation tools. Start your search today at https://hubs.li/Q02fg8B60 #InsuranceDefense #Jury #ClaimDefense #SocialMediaInvestigation

Shadow juries are a relatively new tool in a high value trial. A "shadow juror" listens to the trial as it proceeds and provides their opinion as to what is resonating with the jury and what isn't. The primary focus of the shadow juror is to evaluate the impact of expert testimony as opposed to the overall performance of defense counsel. The average cost for a shadow juror is roughly $10,000 per day. The standard industry to response to a request for shadow juror expense is to "send the adjuster" to the trial. I can attest to this as I have attended many trials with the instructions to "put a stop to things if things start going south". The problem with this approach is the adjuster did the investigation, has been a part of defense formulation from the beginning, and has about as many biases as anyone involved in claim defense. The larger the biases, the bigger the blind spots. While an adjuster may be an economic way to try to avert impending disaster, it may not be your best choice for "the last line of defense". Whether you decide to do a mock trial, a shadow juror, or both, it is imperative to inject as much data into the process as possible. Fraud Sniffr, Inc. is an economical, convenient, and effective means to produce the necessary data necessary to maximize the value of your more expensive evaluation tools. Start your search today at https://hubs.li/Q02fgkLX0 #InsuranceDefense #Jury #ClaimDefense #SocialMediaInvestigation